UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590



## AUG 2 4 2012

CERTIFIEDMAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Doug Harris General Manager VeoliaEnvironmental Services #7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201 Re: Finding ofViolation ofClean Air Act VeoliaEnvironmental Services Sauget, Illinois Dear Mr. Harris: REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF

. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Finding ofViolation (FOV)

to VeoliaEnvironmental Services (you). We find that you are violating Sections 112 and 114 of the CleanAirAct (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412 and 7414, at your Sauget, Illinois facility. We have several enforcement options under Section 113(a)(3) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7413(a)(3). These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing an administrative penalty order and bringing ajudicial civil or criminal action. We are offering you an opportunity to confer with us aboutthe violations alleged inthe FOV. The conference will give youthe opportunity to presentinformation onthe specific fmdings of violation, the efforts you have takento comply, and the steps you will take to prevent future violations. Pleaseplan for your facility's technical and managementpersonnel to attend the conference to discuss compliance measures and connnitments. You may have an attorney represent you at this conference.

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)

### The EPA contacts inthis matter are Sarah Marshall and NathanFrank. You may call Ms. Marshall or Mr. 

### Frank at 312.886.6797 and 312.886.3850, respectively, to request a conference. You should make the request within 10 calendar days following receipt ofthis letter. We should hold any conferencewithin 30 calendar days following receipt ofthis letter. Sincerely, 

### ,f

**~** 

# --z:-/ .J Georg::::r.



# ~ernia

**Acting~r** Air and Radiation

cc: Ray Pilapil, Manager Compliance and Systems Management Section Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Joseph M. KellmeyerUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS

IN THE MATTER OF: Veolia Environmental Services Sauget, Illinois Proceedings Pursuantto the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDING OF VIOLATION EPA-5-12-IL-15

FINDING OF VIOLATION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyfinds that VeoliaEnvironmental Services (Veolia) is violating Section 112 ofthe CleanAirAct (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and its implementing regulations for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors at40 C.F.R. Part 63, SubpartEEE, and Section 114 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414, <'It its Sauget, Illinois facility (Facility). Statutory and Regulatory Authority Section 114 ofthe CAA: 1. Section 114 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7414, provides, inpart, that the Administrator ofthe EPAmay require any personwho owns oroperates any emission source to install, use, andmaintain monitoring equipmentto determine whether thatsource is inviolation ofSection 112 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7412. The NESHAP for HazardousWaste Combustors: 2. On September 30, 1999, EPApromulgatedthe National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT) at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (64 Fed. Reg. 53038). 3. InJuly 2001, the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals vacated the HWC MACT. CementRecycling Coal. v. EPA, 347 U.S. App. D.C. 127,255 F.3d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Court stayedthe vacatur uotil EPA could promulgate interim standards. · 4. OnFebruary 13, 2002, EPApromulgatedthe HWC MACT interim standards at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, SubpartEEE (67 Fed. Reg. 6792). 5. On October 12, 2005, EPApromulgatedthe HWC MACT final standards at 40

. C.F.R. Part 63, SubpartEEE (70 Fed. Reg. 59402).6. The HWC MACT final standards at 40 C.P.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE became effective on October 14, 2008. (70 

### Fed. Reg. 59402). 7. The HWC MACT applies to hazardous waste incinerators (HWincinerators). 40 C.P.R. § 63.1200

.. 8. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1206(a)(l)(ii), requires existing HW incinerators to comply with emission standards provided under 40 C.P.R § 63.1219, including the standard for mercury, by no later than October 14,2008. 9. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1219(a)(2), prohibits HW incinerators from emitting into the atmosphere mercury in excess of 130 ug/dscm, corrected to 7% oxygen. 10. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R. § 63.1206(c), provides operating requirements for HW incinerators and states that failure to comply withthe operatingrequirements is failure to ensure compliance withthe emission standard, including the mercury standard in40 C.P.R. § 63.1219(a)(2). 11. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1207(b)(l), requires HW incinerators to conduct a comprehensive performance test (CPT) to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards and establish operating parameter limitations (OPLs) that ensure compliance with emission standards, including the mercury standard in40 C.P.R.§ 63.1219(a)(2). 12. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1211(c), requires HW incinerators to develop and include in the operating record atthe facility a Document ofCompliance (DOC) by the compliance date ofthe regulations. The DOC identifies the applicable emission standards and the OPLs under§ 63.1209 that will ensure compliance with those emission standards. When the DOC is included inthe operating record, a source is no longer subject to the previously applicable Notice ofCompliance (NOC) that documented compliance with, and established OPLs for, the interim HWC MACT emission standards. 13. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.P.R.§ 63.1211(c)(3), requires HW incinerators to include a signedand dated certification inthe DOC that, based on anengineering evaluation preparedunder the source's direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to 

### ensure thatqualifiedpersonnelproperly gatheredandevaluated the information andsupporting documentation, and considering ata minimum the design, operation, and maintenance characteristics ofthe combustor and emissions control equipment, the types, quantities, and characteristics offeedstreams, and available emissions data:

a. the HW incinerator is in compliance with the emission standards ofthe HWC MACTand b. the limits onthe operating parameters under § 63.1209 ensure compliance withthe emission standards ofthe HWC MACT (emphasis added). 14. The HWC MACT, at40 C.P.R.§ 63.1207G)(1)(i), requires HW incinerators to submit a NOC within 90 days ofcompletion ofa CPT. The NOC must document compliance

2

### with the emission standards and continuous monitoring system requirements, and identifY OPLs under§ 63.1209. 15. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207G)(1)(ii), requires HW incinerators, upon postmark oftheNOC, to comply with all operating requirements specified inthe NOC in lieu ofthe limits specified inthe DOC required under § 63.1211(c). 16. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. 

### § 63.1206(c)(1)(i), requires that HW incinerators operate under the operating requirements specified inthe applicable DOC under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1211(c) or NOC under40 C.F.R. §§ 63.12070) and 63.1210(d). 17. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1), requires that prior to feeding the material to the incinerator, HW incinerators must obtain an analysis ofeach feedstream thatis sufficient to document compliancewith the applicable feed rate limits. The applicable feed rate limits are OPLs for the HW incinerators. 18. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. 

### § 63.1209(c)(2), requires HW incinerators to develop and implement a feedstream analysis plan (FAP) and record it inthe operating record. The FAP must specifY the frequency with which a source must review or repeat the initial analysis ofthe feedstreiun to ensure that the analysis is accurate and up to date. 19. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(4), states thatto comply with applicable feed rate limits, HW incinerators must monitor and record feed rates by, among other requirements, determining and recording the value ofthe parameter for each feedstream by sampling and analysis or other method. The Veolia HWC MACT Feedstream Analysis Plan: 

### 20. Veolia's FAP, at Section 5.3, specifies thatthe procedure for determining concentrations ofArsenic, Berylliwn, Cadmium, Chromium and Lead in samples is EPA SW846 Method 6010C. EPA SW-846 Method 6010C is for the use ofinductively coupled plasmaatomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). 21. EPA SW-846 Method 601 OC Section 4.2.6 states that the interference effects must be evaluated for each individual instrument. This involves determining and documenting the effect ofreferenced interferences and any other suspected interference for each recommended wavelength. The method goes onto require that a computer routine be used for automatic correction ou all analyses. 22. The FAP, at Section 6.0(3), requires thatthe analytical information for the feedstreams be re-evaluated on a frequency offive years since the last assessment ofthe feedstream. CAA Enforcement Authority: 

### 23. Section 1l3(a)(3) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3), provides thatwhenever, on the basis ofany information available to the Administrator, the Administrator finds that any 3personhas violated, oris in violation of, inter alia, Sections 112 or 114 ofthe CAA, the Administrator mayissue an administrative penalty order, an order requiring compliance, or a civil orcriminal action, as appropriate. 

### Finding ofFact 24. Veolia owns and operates three hazardous waste incinerators at#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, Illinois. 25. Veolia's incinerators are subject to the HWC MACTrequirements at40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE. 

### Fact Related to Section 114 ofthe CAA Violation: 26. OnMarch 10, 2010, EPA issued an Information Request under Section 114 ofthe CAA to Veoliainstructing the HWincinerator to install and operate a mercury continuous emissions monitor (CEM) oneach ofits three incinerators, including a request that Veolia submitrequests for proposals (RFPs) to mercury CEMvendors byMarch 26, 20I0; provide copies ofthe RFPs to EPAby March 30, 2010; submit an Alternative Monitoring Plan covering the mercury CEMsto EPAby May 16, 2010; perform all ofthe required certification and calibration ofthe CEMs upon installation and operation; provide all CEMs data on a monthly basis for one year after certification; and provide appropriate waste analyses. 27. To date, Veolia has failed to provide to EPA any ofthe information, and take the actions, identified in Paragraph 26, above. 

### Facts Related to Emission Standard and Feed Rate OPL Violations: 28. Veolia conducted stacktests for MACTmetals, including mercury, inAugust and September 2008 onIncinerators 2, 3, and 4. During the test, Veolia fed mercury into the incinerators inthe form ofwaste and a pre-calibrated spike. 29. OnOctober I0, 2008, based onthe 2008 stacktesting, Veolia submitted to EPA a NOC underthe interim HWC MACT standards containing, inrelevant part, the following feed rate OPLs for mercury (Hg):



### Unit HgFeedrate/OPL lb!hour 2 0.0047 3 0.0047 4 0.031

30. Veolia calculatedthe OPLs for mercury inthe October 10,2008 NOC using an incorrect moisture content for the waste, resulting inhigher than appropriate mercury feed rate OPLs. 4

### 31. Veolia filed a DOC under the fmal HWC MACT in its operating record at its Facility on October 14, 2008. The DOC contained, in relevant part, the following feed rate OPLs for mercury: Unit HgFeedrate/OPL lblhour 

### 2 0.0034 3 0.0034 4 0.026

32. The OPLs specified in paragraph 31 above were based onthe rate mercury was fed during the 2008 metals stack test with an updated, yet still incorrect, moisture content value that resulted inhigher than appropriate mercury feed rateOPLs. 33. On March 16,2010, after Veolia conducted its CPT inDecember 2009, Veolia submitted to EPA a NOC under the fmal HWC MACT standards containing, in relevant part, the following feed rate OPLs for mercury which were updated with the correct moisture content values: Unit Hg Feedrate/OPL lb/honr 

### 2 0.0019 3 0.0019 4 0.026

34. EPA has determined that the 2008 metals stacktest spike mercury concentration Veoliaused to calculate the feed rate OPLs for mercury was incorrect, resulting inmercury feed rate OPLs that remained higher than appropriate. 35. The Facility is operating under a Title V permitissued by EPA on September 12, 2008. The Title V permit does not contain feed rate OPLs for mercury, semi-volatile metals (SVM), or low volatile metals (LVM), as required by the HWC MACT, because EPA did not have reliable data necessary to establish the appropriate OPLs for those hazardous wastes. 36. Between October I0, 2008 and May 31,2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 2 above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance withthe HWC MACT mercury emission standard for at least 9,600 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 37. Between October I0, 2008 and May 31, 2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 3 above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance withthe HWC MACT mercury emission standard for at least 11,500 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 38. Between October I0, 2008 and May 31, 2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 4 above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the HWC MACT mercury emission standard for at least 6,I00 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 5Facts Related to Waste Analysis Violations: 39. In October 2008, Veolia developed a FAP as required by40 C.F.R. 

### § 63.1209(c)(2). 40. From December 5 through December 15,2011, EPA'sNational Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) conducted a focused investigation ofVeolia's compliance with the CAA and RCRA's waste analysis procedures. 41. As part ofthe investigation, NEIC did anindepth review ofless than 1% ofthe waste profiles received byVeolia in 2011 andless than 1.5% ofthe waste volumereceived by Veoliain2011. NEIC found that a highpercentage ofthe profiles itreviewed were inaccurate. Therefore, EPA believes that a broader investigation wouldreveal that significantly more waste profiles at Veolia's facility are inaccurate. 42. Veolia used the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) concentrations instead ofthe total metals concentrations as the value ofmetals ina feedstream for atleast two waste profiles, specifically 236152 and 691163. Veolia's practice underestimates the actual metals concentrationinthe waste stream. 43. NEIC inspectors found that Veolia used generic waste profiles for waste streams that contain volatile and semi-volatile metals, and assigns one metals concentration based onthe generic waste profile ratherthan analyzing for metals each time the waste is received. For example:

a. ProfilesCI5789 and 660210 are both described as "cyanide containing wastes." While both profiles list cadmium cyanide as a possible constituent, Veolia uses a value of6,470 mg/kg cadmium for profile C15789 and 1 mg/kg cadmium for profile 660210. Since these are very similar waste streams generated by different generators, Veolia should analyze these variable waste streams eachtime they arrive on site. b. Profile 374339 is organic debris, and the metals concentrations inthe waste loads could vary greatly. Veolia should analyze these variable waste streams each time they arrive on site.

c. Profile CARBN1 is a generic profile broadly used byVeoliathatuses a standard concentration value for chromium of139 mg/kg. One ofthe load receipts received onApril8, 2011, and sampled and analyzed onJune 9, 2011, had an actual chromium concentration of99,780 mg/kg. Standardprofiles such as CARBNl, that have the potential to have significant variation in metals concentration, do not accurately estimate the metals concentration of the waste streams. Only 19 ofthe 330 total CARBN1loads received ina 3- year period (June 2009 to June 2012) were sampled and analyzed for metals, and all ofthese loads were sampled after January 201 L The use ofoverly broad standard profiles leads to incorrectmetals concentrations being used to calculate the feed rates for the HWC incinerators.

6d. Veolia used several profiles that use metals concentrations identical to those used in otherprofiles. This is statistically unlikely. 44. Veoliafeeds incinerator ash from Incinerators 2 and 3 into Incinerator 4 priorto offsite disposal. NEIC inspectors found that Veolia analyzed this ash for metals only once inthe last seven years. NEIC inspectors analyzed six grab samples ofthe ash from Incinerators 2 and 3. Theresults ofthe analysis show that the metals composition ofthe ash is highly variable. 45. NEIC inspectors identified the presence ofconflicting metals databetweenthe profilepackage andthe information inthe waste tracking system (WTS) and the incinerator control system (ICS) as follows:

a. The profile package for Profile 236152 uses the material safety data sheet (MSDS) concentration ofthree to six percent chromium as chromium oxide (30,000 to 60,000 mg/kg). 

## res uses a value of228 mg/kg for chromium oxide. b. The profile package for Profile 691163 has a TCLPvalue for chromium of 1.8 mg/L,while ICS and WTS use a value of0 mg/L.

c. Theprofile package for Profile AF3753 has a total mercury value of4,140 mg/kg and TLCP value of37.8 mg/kg, but WTS andICS used a value of25. mg/kg for at least five years. 46. Veoliauses

**ICP~AES** software for metals analysis. Whenunknown constituents are present in a sample, automatic background and overlap corrections result in large negative values. Veolia does not measure all major elements in samples to identify and correctpotential negative interferences which could underestimate the metals concentrations. This results in ·inaccurate feedstream· analysis. 

### Violations 47. To date, Veolia has failed to provide any ofthe informationrequired bythe March 10, 2010 Information Request inviolation ofSection 114 ofthe CAA. 48. Veoliafailed to and continues to fail to ensure compliance withthe HWC MACT mercury emission standard by failing to establish an appropriate mercury feed rate OPL inits October 10,2008 NOC, October 14,2008 DOC, and March 16,2010 NOC in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. 

### §§ 63.1206(a)(ii), 63.1206(c), 63.1207(b)(l), 63.12ll(c), and 63.12070)(1)(i). 49. Between October 10,2008 andMay 31,2009, Veolia operated Incinerators 2, 3, and 4 above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the HWC MACTmercury emission standard as described in Paragraphs 29 through 38, above, in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. 

### §§ 63.1206(a)(ii), 63.1206(c)(l)(i), 63.1219(a)(2). 50. Veolia failed and continues to fail to ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information and supporting documentation from the 2008 metals 7

### stacktest to establish mercury feed rate OPLs that ensure compliance with the HWC MACT mercury emission standard inviolation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.121l(c)(3).

· 51. Byusing the TCLP concentrations instead ofthe total metals onProfiles 236152 and 691163, Veolia failed and continues to fail to obtain an analysis ofeach ofthe related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feed rate OPLs in violation of

. the HWC MACT at40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(l) and 63.1209(c)(4). 52. Byusing generic waste profiles and assuming a constant metals concentration for variablewastes, rather than analyzing each waste stream, Veolia failed and continues to fail to obtain an analysis ofeach ofthe related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with the applicablefeedrate OPLs in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1) and 63.1209(c)(4). 53. Veolia failed and continues to fail to analyze the ash from Incinerators 2 and 3 at a frequency necessary to obtain an analysis ofeach ofthe related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance withthe applicable feed rate limits OPLs inviolation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63,1209(c)(1) and 63.1209(c)(4) and Section 6.0(3) ofthe FAP. 54. Veolia failed and continues to fail to resolve the conflict between metals data for Profiles 236152, 691163, and AF3753 which resulted in a failure to obtain an analysis of each ofthe related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feed rate OPLs inviolation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1209(c)(2) and 63.1209(c)(4) and Section 6.0 ofthe FAP. 55. Veolia failed and continues to fail to evaluate interference effects onits ICPAES resulting in a failure to obtain an analysis ofeach ofthe related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance withthe applicable feed rate limits inviolation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2) and 63.1209(c)(4)and Section 5.3 ofthe FAPc

Date



### 8